I could care less
Jump to content
Posted by squishyx on 26 March 2015 - 11:24 PM
I could care less
Posted by squishyx on 03 November 2014 - 01:57 PM
Marty is coming back!
Posted by squishyx on 07 March 2014 - 09:51 AM
I think you are reading too much into it. The guy wants to play every game he can, including the playoffs, who wouldn't? He qualifies it pretty well that it's on him to earn in, and thus far he hasn't.
Posted by squishyx on 30 September 2013 - 12:00 PM
There's a certain shortcoming with the idea of looking at the percentage of bad actors among a certain population and making conclusions about the scale of the problem. I've heard this a lot when people are defending a certain dangerous city -- say Newark -- where someone argues that only a miniscule number of people in Newark are murderers or violent criminals. The problem is, that's still a lot of violent people and a lot of people that are affected by it. Basically, if you live in Newark over a certain period of time, you are VERY likely to be the victim of a violent crime at some point.
So yeah, the percentage of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers might be small as compared to the total number of Muslims, but the fact remains that if you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim land, the chances that something bad is going to happen to you is quite significant. On the other hand, if you are Muslim in a non-Muslim country, the chances that you are going to be the victim of a violent "hate crime" are miniscule, because the actual number of people that are inclined to commit anti-Muslim violent hate crimes is almost negligible.
I didn't discount the scale of the problem of terrorism. It's an obvious ongoing issue that should not be ignored (as I stated)
He asked how any one could consider this a small minority and the answer is pretty straight forward.
Re Newark: and yet, people still live there, and non-muslims still live the middle east. Again, that doesn't diminish the problem, but if you were "very likely" to die in an area at some point, you would most likely leave. I think this is a case of the squeaky wheel gets the oil. All my life I heard how Israel was a desolate war zone until I went there and felt safer walking the streets of Jerusalem at night then I ever did in Manhattan. Yes there are bad places, I am not advocating strolling around Newark at 3 am with stacks of cash in your hand to see if you get jumped or not, but the reality doesn't match the rhetoric on the other end either. There are 200 million Muslims in indonesia for example who haven't harmed a fly and don't deserve the typecasting that people like Leeds want to place on them.
Posted by squishyx on 30 September 2013 - 10:14 AM
I'm not interested in defending monsters. period.
But the second half of your question is a math lesson so I'll take a swing at it.
Let's make some generous assumptions for your side of the argument (that radical Muslims are not a "small" minority).
-There are 500,000 ultra-radical muslims around the world who are currently willing to kill to make make whatever twisted religious point they want to make
-There are 4,500,000 near-radical muslims who, either are terrorist sypmathizers or under the right conditions could easily be converted to ultra-radical
That's about 5,000,000 Islamic terrorists, extremists, w/e
There are 1,600,000,000 muslims on the planet
5,000,000 / 1,600,000,000 = ~0.31%
(and again, I have to qualify I think I am being extremely generous with my estimates, please feel free to substitute your own values if you think I am wildly off)
Now this is going to be the subjective part of the argument, what constitutes "small". In my book, 0.31% qualifies as small. 5 million is a not a small number in and of itself, and certainly you only a need a fraction of that to inflict harm, nor should we just ignore the 5 million. But if you randomly encounter a muslim and you have a 99.69% chance that they are not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, then maybe you should stop trying to stereo type the entire group based on the "small" minority.
Posted by squishyx on 06 September 2013 - 12:35 AM
Maybe some people think there is actually something wrong with it? Should they be silenced?
If you posted this because you think it's an interesting hockey story (personally I would rather the NHL worls forget Avery exists, he is a stain on the game) then fine.
But now you are indicating that you posted it because you disapprove of someone lifestyle so yes, opinions on gay marriage have no business in the hockey section of this forum. If you consider that "silencing" then oh well, that's your fault for using such a blanket term.
Posted by squishyx on 12 July 2013 - 12:36 PM
Get your tinfoil hats out, conspiracy theory coming in:
I still can't imagine why Lou would sign the papers and leave Kovy scott free to sign anywhere he pleases outside the NHL. It just makes no sense; Lou's being majorly taken advantage of if he just decided to do it to be a "good guy". Hockey is a business, and that's not how business works.
Why is this so hard to understand? Kovy was not going to play for the Devils anymore. period. Lou tolling the contract just drags the matter out, makes it a distraction going forward, brings up more drama between the hockey leagues, potentially impacts the Olympics and for what? On the off chance Kovy was going to change his mind and come back to play for the Devils again?
Plus consider this, if he did toll the contract, and the KHL for whatever reason decided to honor it and not let Kovy play, at the start of any season Kovy could just show up to camp collect his 77m sit on the bench and play Sudoku for 82 games a year.
No thanks. Glad Lou has his head on straight.
Posted by squishyx on 11 July 2013 - 04:29 PM
Being Russian has nothing to do with it. The guy just wanted to go play in his home country. You don't think that if the NHL (in some bizzaro world) where located in Europe that eventually some high profile Canadians or Americans would "defect" and come back home to play?
Don't get me wrong, this sucks. I'm pissed he is leaving, but this threads is a little ridiculous.
Posted by squishyx on 18 February 2013 - 06:53 PM
Posted by squishyx on 09 November 2012 - 09:39 AM
But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.
Well that didn't take too long.
I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.
Republicans are now 1 in 6 in the last few elections in terms of winning the popular vote. Quite frankly your advice is wrong. What they need is a strong center-right candidate that people can relate too that doesn't make disparaging remarks about those very minorities you are wishful about currying. Self deportation, binders full of women, the 47% comment, moving further to the right is not going to win you any more votes.
Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.
And yet, more money was dumped into attacking Obama then Romney, 329million dollars went towards Obama opposition ads vs 97m for Romney (via opensecrets). Attack ads work, that's why they do them, and it's pretty funny to see you accuse the democrats playing dirty tactics and then not nick republicans for doing the same thing... only on a much grander scale.
Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.
Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.
Posted by squishyx on 08 November 2012 - 11:43 AM
I said we would likely disagree, you asked for merit and I gave you my reasons.
He didn't end any wars. He tried to extend the war in Iraq but wasn't able to so the troops came home at the deadline that was set by Bush. He has tripled the amount spent on the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't really call that winding it down. He also started wars in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.
Posted by squishyx on 07 November 2012 - 08:59 PM
He saw us out of a recession, ended 1 war, winded down another, refocused our special forces attention that eventually killed bin laden, cut taxes for working families, passed a universal healthcare law, I liked the auto bailout and I understand the reasoning behind continuing TARP, he ended don't ask don't tell, showed that we can support democracy abroad without committing troops on the ground and kept this nation relatively safe
Lol, typical liberal bias foaming at the mouth. My point was simple that Obama has done nothing to merit a re-election the last four years and you pull out this crap.
Posted by squishyx on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 PM
Yes but that's focusing on one aspect on his analysis. The fact is while we can't know if his "odds of Obama winning" was correct, we can look at how he preforms on swing states and start to look at the trend. He went 9/9 last night, and I think 7/8 in 2008 (the other calls were fairly trivial). He also called the popular vote, and did fairly well at the state levels too (although I haven't examined them all). It's not just about the odds he had Obama winning, it's about his overall accuracy and that his model has merit, a lot more then the supposed pundits who go off their gut.
I poo-poohed Nate Silver's prediction. Boy was I wrong.
The only quibble I still have with his type of analysis is that he put a percentage chance on a one time event. I mean, I could put a 99 percent chance that aliens will land on earth tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I could just say that the one percent scenario is what played out.
Posted by squishyx on 25 October 2012 - 11:28 AM
6 major polls are released daily as well as other scattered ones, it's more accurate to view them in aggregate. But, like I said if you were going to try and pick a poll that favored your guy, a few days ago gall up had him +7 and still has him +3, so I guess my point is less about you cherry picking to be disingenuous and more about "who cares one what given poll says".
Cherry picked? I used the poll that was released today. Every news organization is reporting this poll.
I guess if I used a month old poll that would have been less cherry picked.